ArkAngel:spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts. It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

It's more along the lines of allowing Canada to charge you for beating up your Canadian girlfriend while at the American embassy in Ottawa. While it's geographically in Canada, it is legally a separate nation.

Hey this is Fark. Let's be honest, none of our Canadian girlfriends actually exist.

cameroncrazy1984:cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at. Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. In fact, both are assault. Yet liberals only want to protect the weak women who can't take care of themselves.

giftedmadness:Um, it's almost like none of you read the article. I only made it thru 10 or so posts but nobody seems to understand why people voted against it. You all just want an excuse to say that repubs hate women, it's absurd. Read the article before you post if you don't want to look retarded.

Maybe you should make it through more than ten posts if you don't want to look like an idiot..

But, having read less than 5% of the thread, you felt sufficiently familiar with its content to accuse people of being retarded. Having read less than 5% of the thread, you felt comfortable in declaring that "nobody seems to understand why people voted against it."

And, then you came in here to confidently declare that you have figured out not only the entirity of what was being said in the thread, but the motivations behind why it was said. All this after reading less than 5% of the posts.

serial_crusher:clowncar on fire: spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts. It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.

What if my Canadian girlfriend and I got ino a canoe on an Indian reservation, then paddled it down to the Rio Grande and beat her up right there in the center of the river, between the US and Mexico. Who gets jurisdiction then?

The first one to send out a psychologist... there is a good chance you were punching a sock puppet.

/If you had sex first you could say it was American beer...//farking close to water

clowncar on fire:spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts. It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.

What if my Canadian girlfriend and I got ino a canoe on an Indian reservation, then paddled it down to the Rio Grande and beat her up right there in the center of the river, between the US and Mexico. Who gets jurisdiction then?

gadian:MyRandomName: Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at. Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. In fact, both are assault.

MyRandomName:Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at. Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. In fact, both are assault.

spongeboob:davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts. It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.

"Over 160 million women across the country are watching and waiting to see if the House will act on this bill and finally provide them the protections from violence they deserve," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.

Emposter:meat0918: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no....Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Why would he of all people open himself up to that if he is considering a presidential run?

Lemme explain to you how this works. Either:

A) He's banking on the fact that the American public and media have the attention and memory of a dead drunk fruit fly and won't remember this, orB) He's going to say something along the lines of "I would have reauthorized the old act, which protected women from domestic violence. However, those evil libruls put in poison pill changes to give special rights to gays and illegals, so I had to vote against it, for America," hoping that the idiot/bigot vote is enough to make it worthwhile.

Want to know why the federal government keeps growing; keeps stepping into local school systems, local law enforcement cases, local matters usually regarded as 'states rights'? It's because local and state governments keep farking up and someone has to pick up the slack. Don't blame the plunger because you stopped up the toilet.

serial_crusher:Remember folks, if you disliked the bill because its name sounds sexist against men, you're an idiot because the content of the bill doesn't actually have anything to do with preventing violence.

But the 22 guys who voted against it based on its content are sexists who actually favor violence against women, because "just look at the name, who would vote against that?".

/ Anyhow, if we're going to make bookcover judgments about it, aren't those 22 republicans heroes for opposing Violence Against Women? Everybody else voted for Violence Against Women, so clearly they're the real sexists.

What the fark am I reading here? All it's missing is a "best part................forever".

Raharu:I often wonder what it must feel like to be consistently on the wrong side of history.

No one knows. Liberals are always on the right side, and after a generation or so, conservatives tell themselves that they were, too. Did you know that MLK and Rosa Parks were big defenders of the 2nd Amendment?

During debate, the major divisive issue was a provision that allows tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians accused of assaulting Indian women on reservations. Republicans, arguing that subjecting non-Indians to Indian courts was unconstitutional, offered two amendments to strip that section from the bill, but both were defeated.